ArticleEJIFCC2025
Relationship Between Abnormal Laboratory Results and Recorded Clinical Diagnoses in Tertiary Hospital Settings: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in EJIFCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The relationship between laboratory results and clinical decisions, including diagnoses, is not always clear. This study aims to determine the association between abnormal laboratory test results and diagnoses recorded by the clinicians within the electronic medical records in tertiary hospital settings. Method: We conducted a retrospective observational study using anonymised linked hospital data of 223,789 adult admissions between January 2020 and December 2021 in two Local Health Districts in New South Wales, Australia. Data extracted from hospital information systems included patient demographics, recorded clinical diagnoses and laboratory test results. We analysed correlations between abnormal results from common laboratory tests (nasopharyngeal/oral swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR, serum/plasma total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) antigen [PSA], free thyroxine [free T4], thyroid stimulating hormone [TSH], cardiac troponin T, and cortisol) and their respective recorded diagnoses. Results: We observed the following Spearman correlation coefficients between abnormal laboratory test results and their corresponding recorded clinical diagnoses: positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR and COVID-19 (ρ=1.00), total PSA >10 μg/L and prostate cancer (ρ=0.66), free T4 >25.0 pmol/L and hyperthyroidism (ρ=0.58), TSH >5.00 mIU/L and hypothyroidism (ρ=0.56), TSH <0.30 mIU/L and hyperthyroidism (ρ=0.55), cardiac troponin T >20 ng/L and acute coronary syndrome (ρ=0.51), free T4 <8.0 pmol/L and hypothyroidism (ρ=0.42), and cortisol <80 nmol/L and adrenal insufficiency (ρ=0.33). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that abnormal laboratory results play an important but varied role in clinical diagnoses. The weaker associations highlight that laboratory tests may be utilised differently in different clinical pathways, underscoring the complex relationship between laboratory results and clinical diagnoses, and the importance of considering abnormal test results in the appropriate clinical context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41098224PMC12519697What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.